The Result of University Cost-Cutting Measures . . .

the Plausible Deniability Blog takes up where the PostModernVillage blog left off. While you'll see many of the same names here, PDB allows its writers and editors a space away from financial strum und drang that torpedoed the PMV blog.

Sunday, August 27, 2017

It seems that at
this point in our nation’s history we’re bargaining one group’s
right to free speech against many other groups’ right to simply
exist.

The issues typically
get boiled down to “tolerance” or “intolerance,” and they’re
talked about primarily by people like me: white, middle-class folks
who, after all, have nothing to lose in the matter and have the
privilege of discussing such matters amongst themselves.

I can’t guarantee
that I won’t do more of the same here. My purposes, for what
they’re worth, are to reframe the ideas at play, and, by so doing,
to perhaps bring some clarity, barring the possibility of actual
resolution.

I’m working from a
few basic ideas here. The first is that all speech has
consequences. Otherwise, people wouldn’t do it. You may be
talking to yourself just to make yourself feel better or to keep
yourself company, but those are desired consequences. Thus when a
white supremacist takes part in a rally, he is foolish if he thinks
that expressing such an extreme point of view won’t be met with
extreme reactions. This is not to say that the person who lashes out
violently at the white supremacist should be exonerated for her
actions, but it does mean we should acknowledge a possible—in this
case probable—response.

Speech, rather
than being entirely counter to action, is itself also an action.
In this way, speech can be seen as inter-related to other actions and
reactions. The white supremacist cited above would think himself a
failure if no counter-demonstration or media showed up to his rally.
And while he is also foolish if he thinks his speech will lead a
white homeland to be bestowed upon him the following morning, a white
homeland is, among other things, one of the stated goals of his
speech.

Speech, being an
action, requires responsibility. A whole lot of ink has been
spilt trying to put forth the idea that free speech is somehow
rendered outside the normative realm of social responsibility. “It’s
just an opinion,” or “Those who disagree are being politically
correct,” or “I was only joking” are ways people try to duck
responsibility for what they say or to avoid criticism. If you speak,
particularly in a public forum, you must be prepared for reaction and
criticism, hardened to it, able to meet it emotionally and
intellectually. Of all of the things I’m going to say here, this
cleaves most closely to the “it goes for both sides” idea.

Silence in the
proper places can be powerful, but it can also be someone acting with
discretion. Depending on the context, it might not be acquiescence to
evil at all but refusing to take the bait. At any rate, speaking is
not a way to avoid responsibility; it’s another situation that
requires it. Criticism, in the case of free speech, is another word
for accountability.

Choosing to act
in a way that defies the law also has consequences, and it can also
be a form of speech. As Dr. King put it, those involved in
nonviolent direct action chose to break the law “openly” and
“lovingly.” They did this in order to bring attention to laws
that were unjust. And they willingly suffered the consequences of
breaking the law. While an Antifa activist may not be trying to
tell the world that laws against assault are unjust, she is trying to
draw attention to the fact that fascism is an injustice. However, she
would also be foolish to think that punching a fascist shouldn’t be
met with legal sanction. If she does it, she should do it openly and
with a willingness to suffer the legal consequences in order to make
her point: violent force is worthwhile against fascists.

The white
supremacist, of course, wishes to make injustice law, and therefore
must be countered first by legal means, with speech acts, political
resistance, and nonviolent direct action. And then, should his ideas
become law, with open and expressive violations of those laws, and
with a willingness to suffer the consequences.

I’m rationalist
enough to believe that if we enter into troubled times with clarity
of thought, we will spare ourselves the worst of troubles. But I’m
realist enough to know that fascists and white supremacists won’t
be defeated by our clarity of thought alone.